3 ms·

We're living in an increasingly efficient, automated, bountiful, and wealthy world; why do we have to stick to any "historical system" that sucked for 99.9% of

by Ntrails 11y ago

We're living in an increasingly efficient, automated, bountiful, and wealthy world; why do we have to stick to any "historical system" that sucked for 99.9% of all humans who have ever lived? There is nothing in the universe that implies life was ever meant to be anything but a struggle to keep surviving. Mainly because the alternative is considered worse (the fact that considering otherwise is often brushed off as mental illness indicates how embedded this attitude is). Your initial assumption seems to be that life is about being happy, and the only things you do should make you happy. I question where that came from? If reality isn't soul crushing[1], well, you and I see a different reality. Simply wishing it weren't so won't change it. I'm unwilling to accept statements of "the world will magically become a place of fairy tales where no one goes hungry, everyone enjoys their days, and life is fair." I'd be frankly shocked if we could even manage the basics like "No one should die of diseases we cured in the 1800s". I don't think depression plays a part, I don't even think it's naivety per se. It's an attitude thing really, I'm pretty bleak. However, I believe my position to be consistent with the world as it is, rather than as we might wish it to be. If wishes were wings and all that... [1] No statements of souls being a real thing was meant.

slirpee 11y ago
> There is nothing in the universe that implies life was ever meant to be anything but a struggle to keep surviving. "Meant to" implies some intelligence other than our own guiding life and the universe, I think. Do you posit such a thing? I happen to believe in one, which may have something to do with assumptions and attitudes I've expressed. So, are you one of the ones that considers death worse than "struggling to survive"? Why? > Simply wishing it weren't so won't change it. True on some levels, and yet I'm arguing we are the most empowered we have ever been, to actually change it. If we achieve the "Star Trek" future of cheap food replicators etc. we will be even more so. Would you argue we shouldn't look forward to such things, because "life is meant to be a struggle where most people barely survive"? > I'd be frankly shocked if we could even manage the basics like "No one should die of diseases we cured in the 1800s". That's one of the things we can change. I'm not going to argue about how realistic that is, or how it should be done. I guess the essence of the differences between you and me/others, is that you seem unwilling to even give it much consideration. Why do you refuse to entertain the possibility of aligning "the world as we might wish it to be" with "the world as it is"?
- Ntrails 11y ago
  No, I don't believe in a God/Purpose/etc. If you do, and take from that a greater meaning, then it's a good thing! I'd question why such a being would leave humanity to spend thousands of years in suffering before reaching the general happiness part - but I'm glib. Death is not worse than struggling to survive imo and death can be a perfectly rational choice, I simply choose to go on because of family and a sense of responsibility for their pain. Why do you refuse to entertain the possibility of aligning "the world as we might wish it to be" with "the world as it is"? I don't argue against change. I don't impede action. Occasionally I giveto/support both. I think that when your expectations of what life really is are unrealistic then you're doomed to be unhappy. I think that's the reason religion focusses on rewards in another life that is un-knowable, because that does not result in unhappiness in the short term due to being "short changed" (and indeed improves the acceptance of current lot in life). This is all perspective, it's all my point of view. I'm no great/deep thinker - and I don't claim mine is the only way. I do like discussion though :)
  - mercer 11y ago
    I think it's important to separate making peace with the state of things from accepting it. On the one hand, I consider it a personal goal to practice the ability of being happy despite my circumstances, accepting things as they are (and perhaps changing those things that I think I can change). On the other hand, whether 'nature or nurture', I wish to make things better as well, to fight things I think are wrong, and build things that I think are right. Keeping the latter from affecting the former is difficult sometimes, but fundamentally I see them as two completely separate matters.

by Ntrails 11y ago

slirpee 11y ago

> There is nothing in the universe that implies life was ever meant to be anything but a struggle to keep surviving. "Meant to" implies some intelligence other than our own guiding life and the universe, I think. Do you posit such a thing? I happen to believe in one, which may have something to do with assumptions and attitudes I've expressed. So, are you one of the ones that considers death worse than "struggling to survive"? Why? > Simply wishing it weren't so won't change it. True on some levels, and yet I'm arguing we are the most empowered we have ever been, to actually change it. If we achieve the "Star Trek" future of cheap food replicators etc. we will be even more so. Would you argue we shouldn't look forward to such things, because "life is meant to be a struggle where most people barely survive"? > I'd be frankly shocked if we could even manage the basics like "No one should die of diseases we cured in the 1800s". That's one of the things we can change. I'm not going to argue about how realistic that is, or how it should be done. I guess the essence of the differences between you and me/others, is that you seem unwilling to even give it much consideration. Why do you refuse to entertain the possibility of aligning "the world as we might wish it to be" with "the world as it is"?

Ntrails 11y ago
No, I don't believe in a God/Purpose/etc. If you do, and take from that a greater meaning, then it's a good thing! I'd question why such a being would leave humanity to spend thousands of years in suffering before reaching the general happiness part - but I'm glib. Death is not worse than struggling to survive imo and death can be a perfectly rational choice, I simply choose to go on because of family and a sense of responsibility for their pain. Why do you refuse to entertain the possibility of aligning "the world as we might wish it to be" with "the world as it is"? I don't argue against change. I don't impede action. Occasionally I giveto/support both. I think that when your expectations of what life really is are unrealistic then you're doomed to be unhappy. I think that's the reason religion focusses on rewards in another life that is un-knowable, because that does not result in unhappiness in the short term due to being "short changed" (and indeed improves the acceptance of current lot in life). This is all perspective, it's all my point of view. I'm no great/deep thinker - and I don't claim mine is the only way. I do like discussion though :)
- mercer 11y ago
  I think it's important to separate making peace with the state of things from accepting it. On the one hand, I consider it a personal goal to practice the ability of being happy despite my circumstances, accepting things as they are (and perhaps changing those things that I think I can change). On the other hand, whether 'nature or nurture', I wish to make things better as well, to fight things I think are wrong, and build things that I think are right. Keeping the latter from affecting the former is difficult sometimes, but fundamentally I see them as two completely separate matters.